Bipartisanshiphttp://www.businessinsider.com/category/bipartisanship
en-usTue, 03 Mar 2015 20:13:15 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:13:15 -0500The latest news on Bipartisanship from Business Insiderhttp://static3.businessinsider.com/assets/images/bilogo-250x36-wide-rev.pngBusiness Insiderhttp://www.businessinsider.com
http://www.businessinsider.com/amash-to-end-left-right-paradigm-2013-4Ron Paul's Protege Is Determined To 'Tear Down The Left-Right Paradigm' On Capitol Hillhttp://www.businessinsider.com/amash-to-end-left-right-paradigm-2013-4
Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:15:00 -0400Scott Galupo
<p><span><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/5175a1f4ecad041f3e00000d-400-300/justin-amash-2.jpg" border="0" alt="justin amash" width="400" height="300" />The libertarian-trending George F. Will seems&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-justin-amash-one-to-watch-from-michigan/2013/04/19/4beebecc-a858-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html">cautiously optimistic</a><span>&nbsp;about what an ambitious Rep. Justin Amash could mean for a Republican brand in flux. </span></p>
<p><span>He writes of the 33-year-old House member, who&rsquo;s mulling a run to replace Michigan Sen. Carl Levin:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span><span>Last month, when [Sen. Rand] Paul was waging his 13-hour filibuster, Amash made his first visit to the Senate floor and was struck by the contrast with the House, which he says is &ldquo;good fun&rdquo; and &ldquo;loud and boisterous.&rdquo; The Senate would be more so with Amash inside, and Michigan Republicans, having lost six consecutive Senate elections, might reasonably want to try something new. But as Amash undertakes to &ldquo;tear down the left-right paradigm,&rdquo; he must consider how the delicate but constructive fusion of libertarians and social conservatives has served Republicans, and the sometimes inverse relationship between being interesting and being electable.</span></span></p>
<p>Amash is mindful of two things: 1) that there&rsquo;s a demand among Republican elites for a more &ldquo;moderate&rdquo; face of the party; and 2) that lawmakers in the self-styled&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/paul-ryans-budget-isnt-popular-with-the-liberty-movement">liberty movement</a>&nbsp;have a reputation for being the opposite of moderate.</p>
<p>And so Amash surveys the scene and calls himself, well, a &ldquo;moderate&rdquo;&mdash;because, he tells Will, &ldquo;the point of the Constitution is to moderate the government.&rdquo;</p>
<p><em>Reason</em>&rsquo;s Brian Doherty appreciates Amash&rsquo;s rhetorical jujitsu, but doubts it will fly politically:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span>Surely deep down he understands that his libertarian leanings scare lots of voters. He&rsquo;d certainly be painted by the Democrats as the candidate out to destroy Medicare, Social Security, the safety net, clean food and air, and our national security if the Democratic Party had to fight him for a precious Senate seat.</span></p>
<p>If &ldquo;libertarians are the true moderates&rdquo; turns out to be a flop in the near term, what about the ideological medium- and long-term? Will Amash and co. &ldquo;tear down the left-right paradigm&rdquo;? The liberty Republicans see an opposition party embracing, and their own party halfheartedly resisting, a collectivist drift on government spending, civil liberties, and economic freedom. Can Congress&rsquo;s liberty caucus simultaneously push to restore its vision of limited government and make the Republican once again a&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-gop-still-a-national-party/">national party</a>?</p>
<p>If it does, it will be because both parties will have coalesced around variants of radical individualism. What Amash fails to appreciate, in my view, is the practical interpretation of the Democratic agenda. Where Amash sees collectivism, voters increasingly see a distant and neutral guarantor of personal liberation and self-actualization. Amash sees high taxes, Big Brother, and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.radio.cz/en/section/archives/calisthenics-communist-style-1">mass gymnastics</a>; the &ldquo;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/13/obamas-budget-and-the-coalition-of-the-ascendant">coalition of the ascendant</a>&rdquo; sees government creating &ldquo;<a href="https://www.google.com/#output=search&amp;sclient=psy-ab&amp;q=obama+ladders+of+opportunity&amp;oq=obama+%22ladders+o&amp;gs_l=hp.3.0.0.322.2161.0.2831.16.15.0.0.0.0.448.2188.7j5j0j2j1.15.0...0.0...1c.1.9.psy-ab.AKtecZntNck&amp;pbx=1&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.45512109,d.dmQ&amp;fp=3e6124e6022b4cb6&amp;biw=1000&amp;bih=575">ladders of opportunity</a>&rdquo; while abjuring moral judgmentalism.</p>
<p>A politics that further marginalizes the Rick Santorums of the world, that elevates individualism at the expense of the party&rsquo;s waning ethos of communitarianism&mdash;and while continuing to frustrate the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/business/media/koch-brothers-making-play-for-tribunes-newspapers.html">Koch Brothers&rsquo; economic agenda</a>&mdash;is not what Justin Amash has in mind.</p>
<p>Yet unwittingly that&rsquo;s what he&rsquo;s paving the way for: a shattered left-right paradigm that yields a new left-right fusionism.</p>
<p>I don&rsquo;t think George Will would find this constructive at all.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/amash-to-end-left-right-paradigm-2013-4#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/graham-tests-if-republicans-compromise-2013-4Why Lindsey Graham's Obsession With 'Ugly' Issues Could Destroy Himhttp://www.businessinsider.com/graham-tests-if-republicans-compromise-2013-4
Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:00:00 -0400David Grant
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/50e073db69bedd135b00000c-400-300/lindsey-graham-1.jpg" border="0" alt="lindsey graham" width="400" height="300" /></p><p>For the first several months of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama" target="_self" class="inform_link">President Obama</a>'s second term, the newly-reelected chief executive got no gentle treatment from&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Lindsey+Graham" target="_self" class="inform_link">Lindsey Graham</a>, the senior Republican senator from South Carolina.</p>
<div class="podStoryRel p402_hide">
<div class="podBrdr">
<div class="pod">
<div class="podHd"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">Senator Graham savaged&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Susan+Rice" target="_self" class="inform_link">U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">, a close friend of Mr. Obama's, for her public handling of the terror attack in Benghazi,&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Libya" target="_self" class="inform_link">Libya</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">. He excoriated a onetime colleague, former&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Chuck+Hagel" target="_self" class="inform_link">Sen. Chuck Hagel (R)</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">&nbsp;of&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Nebraska" target="_self" class="inform_link">Nebraska</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">, when the president put up the taciturn Midwesterner as his choice for secretary of Defense. And he balked vociferously at the&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+White+House" target="_self" class="inform_link">White House</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">'s push for more stringent gun laws.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>So whom did Obama call to organize a dinner for himself and often-recalcitrant Senate Republicans as the first serious bipartisan outreach of his second term?</p>
<p>Graham, of course.</p>
<p>Over nearly two decades in Congress, Graham has earned almost singular renown for his political and policy entrepreneurship, a consistent willingness to find conservative ways to solve problems rife with partisan divisions. The bigger the problem, the uglier the politics, the more likely the slight man with the classic Southern-lawyer demeanor will be at the center of the fray.</p>
<p>Sometimes, as with Ms. Rice and Mr. Hagel, it's as a partisan slasher. But in other cases, from offering fixes to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Social+Security" target="_self" class="inform_link">Social Security</a>&nbsp;under&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/George+W.+Bush" target="_self" class="inform_link">President George W. Bush</a>&nbsp;to pushing for comprehensive immigration reform to supporting a "grand bargain" on fiscal issues, Graham has shown an equal fidelity to finding solutions in politically uncomfortable places.</p>
<p>Those who have followed Graham see his tenacity in trying to work things out rooted in his personal history. While en route to becoming the first in his family to graduate from college, Graham lost both of his parents in a 15-month span. He became the legal guardian of his 15-year-old sister when just a junior at the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/University+of+South+Carolina" target="_self" class="inform_link">University of South Carolina</a>.</p>
<p>"A couple of times we tried, with others, to develop Social Security reform," says former&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Joseph+Lieberman" target="_self" class="inform_link">Sen. Joe Lieberman</a>&nbsp;(<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Indiana" target="_self" class="inform_link">Ind.</a>) of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Connecticut" target="_self" class="inform_link">Connecticut</a>, a longtime Graham ally. "He said to me, privately, 'I'm never going to be part of hurting Social Security because if it wasn't for Social Security, we wouldn't have made it.' As he looks back at his life, I think there's a voice inside his head that says, 'I can't believe it. Now that I'm here, I've got to make it count.'"</p>
<p>Graham kept moving forward &ndash; into the Air Force as a lawyer and then, more than a decade later, into Congress with the backing of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/South+Carolina" target="_self" class="inform_link">South Carolina</a>'s political godfather, the late&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Strom+Thurmond" target="_self" class="inform_link">Sen. Strom Thurmond</a>&nbsp;(R). But it was that experience of vulnerability and survival that helped shape how he operates in the Senate today.</p>
<div class="podStoryRel p402_hide">
<div class="podBrdr">
<div class="pod">
<div class="podHd"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">"I think he's realized he needs a lot of people to help him, and people of all different stripes have helped him as he's gone through life," says David Woodard, a political science professor at&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Clemson+University" target="_self" class="inform_link">Clemson University</a><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">&nbsp;in South Carolina, who ran two of Graham's House campaigns in the 1990s. "I believe he thinks he can talk and work with a lot of people that most people don't think they can work with."</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>Graham, who is fiercely loyal to his friends, is able to sit down with people ranging from liberal&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Charles+Schumer" target="_self" class="inform_link">Sen. Chuck Schumer (D)</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York" target="_self" class="inform_link">New York</a>&nbsp;to members of the three local South Carolina Republican committees who expressed no confidence in him in 2009 for not being conservative enough.</p>
<p>Graham remains under fire from some activists on the right, who see him as too willing to compromise on core principles. Even before the 2012 election, groups like the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/The+Club+for+Growth" target="_self" class="inform_link">Club for Growth</a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Senate+Conservatives+Fund" target="_self" class="inform_link">Senate Conservatives Fund</a>&nbsp;were open about their interest in finding a candidate to challenge him in 2014.</p>
<p>In that sense, Graham is a test for whether skillful politicians can reach bipartisan compromise and survive. "The rest of the country is looking to see what Lindsey Graham is going to do [on immigration]," says Jeremy Robbins, director of the Partnership for a New American Economy, a group partially funded by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York+City" target="_self" class="inform_link">New York City</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Michael+Bloomberg" target="_self" class="inform_link">Mayor Michael Bloomberg</a>.</p>
<p>Mr. Robbins' group and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party" target="_self" class="inform_link">Republicans</a>&nbsp;for Immigration Reform, a new "super political-action committee" dedicated to supporting conservatives who take tough votes on immigration, are running advertisements to counter negative spots aired by critics of Graham in South Carolina.</p>
<p>If he fails? The man whom conservative radio talk-show host&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Rush+Limbaugh" target="_self" class="inform_link">Rush Limbaugh</a>&nbsp;once derided as Lindsey "Grahamnesty" &ndash; a derisive term for his willingness to support some sort of legal status for illegal immigrants &ndash; could lose to a more ideologically pure lawmaker in a primary next year.</p>
<p>And if he succeeds? "If he can become part of [a big compromise] that passes and survive," says&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Julian+Zelizer" target="_self" class="inform_link">Julian Zelizer</a>, a congressional historian at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Princeton+University" target="_self" class="inform_link">Princeton University</a>, "then I think a lot of Republicans would think twice about their fears about entering this kind of negotiation."</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/graham-tests-if-republicans-compromise-2013-4#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/113th-congress-getting-things-done-2013-4Believe It Or Not, The New Congress Is Actually Getting Things Donehttp://www.businessinsider.com/113th-congress-getting-things-done-2013-4
Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:30:00 -0400David Grant
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><img style="float:right;" src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5072f084ecad040928000004-400-300/congress.png" border="0" alt="congress" width="400" height="300" />The&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/U.S.+Congress" target="_self" class="inform_link">112th Congress</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, born in the tea party wave of 2010 and ending with&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Barack+Obama" target="_self" class="inform_link">President Obama</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">'s thundering reelection last November, was the least productive session in more than 60 years. Quietly, however, the 113th Congress is showing signs of getting more things done over the next two years &ndash; despite all the rancor beneath the rotunda.</span></p>
<div class="podStoryRel p402_hide">
<div class="podBrdr">
<div class="pod">
<div class="podHd"><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">The year started off with a bipartisan group of senior senators heading off a potentially "nuclear" showdown over a controversial Senate tool &ndash; the filibuster. In March, the long-delayed&nbsp;</span><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Violence+Against+Women+Act" target="_self" class="inform_link">Violence Against Women Act</a>&nbsp;<span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;">moved from moribund to becoming law. More recently House and Senate lawmakers worked assiduously to keep the government funded through the end of the fiscal year, without the protests that have surrounded such measures in the recent past.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>On nearly every major legislative initiative, at least some bipartisan activity is under way, even if it isn't yielding everything its sponsors would like. From strengthening controls on firearms to immigration reform to renewed stirrings of a "grand bargain" on taxes and entitlement programs, Congress is alive with the possibility of compromise. In other words, the dealmakers are resurfacing.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Why has this all been so hard?</span></p>
<p>Many of the obstacles to congressional deal-making have been building for years and aren't peculiar to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Washington%2c+DC" target="_self" class="inform_link">Washington</a>'s current dysfunction. The sharp divide among lawmakers reflects in part the polarization on a wide range of policy and cultural issues that exists among the voters who sent them there.</p>
<p>The positions are hardened by deep-pocketed advocacy groups with ideological focuses as intense as they are narrow. Such groups make departing from the party line more dangerous than ever. The increasing amount of money needed to run for Congress also means lawmakers spend more time fundraising and less time studying issues or forging relationships with colleagues, the chassis on which dealmaking is built.</p>
<p>Complicating the impulse to compromise today is the frequency with which&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Capitol+Hill" target="_self" class="inform_link">Capitol Hill</a>&nbsp;is experiencing "wave" elections. Several electoral drubbings &ndash; Democratic triumphs in 2006 and 2008, the Republican resurgence in 2010 &ndash; have fed a sense among new members that any concessions on the issues that brought them to power would betray their constituents. While these transformative elections usually happen about once every decade, the recent cluster has created cliques of lawmakers with seemingly narrow mandates to an extent rarely seen in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/United+States" target="_self" class="inform_link">US</a>history.</p>
<p>Members elected in such waves "are really not going to make deals that go against what the people who put them there want [them] to do," says former&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Steve+LaTourette" target="_self" class="inform_link">Rep. Steven LaTourette (R)</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Ohio" target="_self" class="inform_link">Ohio</a>, a centrist. "On '<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Patient+Protection+and+Affordable+Care+Act" target="_self" class="inform_link">Obamacare</a>,' you don't hear a lot of the 2010 class say, 'Well, let's save the good parts and jettison the rest.' It's 'repeal, repeal, repeal,' because that was the war drum on the campaign trail."</p>
<p>Given the tough constraints, today's congressional dealmakers aren't coming from either party's moderate wing, as many of them have in the past. Those lawmakers have either been defeated or have left office on their own, out of frustration with the toxic atmosphere on the Hill or fear of a primary challenge. Instead, it's up to lawmakers respected on both the left and right, like<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Tom+Coburn" target="_self" class="inform_link">Republicans Sen. Tom Coburn</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Oklahoma" target="_self" class="inform_link">Oklahoma</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Paul+Ryan" target="_self" class="inform_link">Rep. Paul Ryan</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Wisconsin" target="_self" class="inform_link">Wisconsin</a>&nbsp;or Democrats like<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Charles+Schumer" target="_self" class="inform_link">Sen. Chuck Schumer (D)</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/New+York" target="_self" class="inform_link">New York</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Chris+Van+Hollen" target="_self" class="inform_link">Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D)</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Maryland" target="_self" class="inform_link">Maryland</a>, to get things done.</p>
<p>Getting those on either end of the spectrum to sit down together can be aided by what might be called political entrepreneurs, like&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Lindsey+Graham" target="_self" class="inform_link">Sen. Lindsey Graham (R)</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/South+Carolina" target="_self" class="inform_link">South Carolina</a>, legislators willing to tackle sensitive issues such as immigration and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Social+Security" target="_self" class="inform_link">Social Security</a>&nbsp;before their parties are willing to do the same. But bringing disparate politicians together on new ideas is another matter. That is now often done through old-fashioned bargaining in the backroom, where lawmakers can make the kind of concessions key to compromise.</p>
<p>"Part of the value [of such groups] is they are working on the outlines of what a bargain on any issue would be before it hits the media," says&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Julian+Zelizer" target="_self" class="inform_link">Julian Zelizer</a>, a congressional historian at&nbsp;<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Princeton+University" target="_self" class="inform_link">Princeton University</a>. Bipartisan gangs "give some kind of signal to other party members that it's OK" to depart from orthodoxy.</p>
<p>The public's general disdain for gridlock and voters' outspokenness on individual issues are other factors that may force more compromise. "Sometimes dealmakers gain strength when there is some kind of social pressure to do something," says Mr. Zelizer.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/113th-congress-getting-things-done-2013-4#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/problem-solvers-put-policy-over-politics-2013-3A New Congressional Group Is Finally Putting Policy Above Politicshttp://www.businessinsider.com/problem-solvers-put-policy-over-politics-2013-3
Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:00:00 -0400Joe Manchin and Lynn Jenkins
<div id="article_body" class="article_body">
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><img style="float:right;" src="http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4fbe495569bedd151f000008-400-300/diplomas-graduation-shake-hands.jpg" border="0" alt="diplomas graduate shake hands" width="400" height="300" />There are few rooms on Capitol Hill where the two of us regularly see each other. In fact, one of the only rooms on Capitol Hill where Democrats and Republicans from the House and Senate meet to talk about the policy issues of the day is the room where the 54 No Labels &ldquo;problem solvers&rdquo; meet.</span></p>
<p>Sometimes, it&rsquo;s a basement room in the Rayburn Building. Sometimes, it&rsquo;s a conference room in Cannon. But no matter where it is, the &ldquo;problem solvers&rdquo; are building the kind of trust across party lines that offers a glimmer of hope in the dysfunctional world of Capitol Hill.</p>
<p>The &ldquo;problem solvers&rdquo; began with two dozen members on January 14th at the No Labels&rsquo; Meeting to Make America Work! Since then, our ranks have more than doubled as word has spread about what we are all about &ndash; &ldquo;Fix Not Fight,&rdquo; as we declared with the lapel pins we wore to the State of the Union address.</p>
<p>Why are colleagues gravitating towards the &ldquo;problem solvers&rdquo; group? Because they recognize that partisan bickering prevents us from solving our nation&rsquo;s complex problems.</p>
<p>Moreover, Washington&rsquo;s partisan divide erodes Americans&rsquo; faith in their government and creates uncertainty in the marketplace that prevents businesses from hiring, investors from investing and hardworking Americans from finding good-paying jobs.</p>
<p>The fiscal cliff and sequestration debacles only reinforce the public&rsquo;s sense that Washington is broken, that it kicks the can down the road again and again, creating one manufactured crisis after the next, rather than addressing our long-term fiscal crisis and getting our financial house in order.</p>
<p>Disagreement in our nation&rsquo;s capital is nothing new. In fact, that&rsquo;s how our forefathers designed our government to work. Fierce debates, differing viewpoints and contrasting ideas are welcome. However, when decisions need to be made on tough issues to move this country forward, fiery disputes should take a back seat to reasoned negotiations and bipartisan agreements. That&rsquo;s the pathway forward that No Labels&rsquo; &ldquo;problem solvers&rdquo; are pioneering.</p>
<p>There is no ideological litmus test to join. We simply require a positive attitude and a willingness to put policy above politics. We work for what&rsquo;s best for our country. We welcome everyone &ndash; so long as they are willing to seek commonsense solutions to the challenges that face America.</p>
<p>We may not have had any miraculous breakthroughs yet. But for the first time in a long time, Democrats and Republicans are trying to find common ground. And in Washington today, that qualifies as a giant step forward.</p>
<p>Although the &ldquo;problem solvers&rdquo; are changing Washington from within, we&rsquo;re getting help from the enthusiasm from citizens outside of Washington. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are mobilizing through NoLabels.org to support our efforts and are encouraging their elected representatives to join our group. Someday soon, with their help, we&rsquo;re going to need a bigger meeting room.</p>
<p>We do not agree on everything -- or even most things -- but we do agree that America is not going to move forward until Democrats and Republicans find a way to work together. We may be from different political parties, but we are Americans first and foremost. It is time for us to come together in whatever room on Capitol Hill we meet and do what needs to be done for this great country of ours. There is no time to waste.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</div>
<div id="article-author"><em style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.5em;"><a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/joe-manchin">Joe Manchin</a> is a&nbsp;U.S. Senator from West Virginia.&nbsp;Lynn Jenkins represents Kansas's Second congressional district.&nbsp;</em></div><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/problem-solvers-put-policy-over-politics-2013-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-friends-with-bob-corker-2013-1Elizabeth Warren Wants To Start Hanging Out With A GOP Senatorhttp://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-friends-with-bob-corker-2013-1
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:56:00 -0500Lucas Kawa
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5060a3556bb3f71e2c00000e-400-300/brownwarrenad.9.12.jpg" border="0" alt="elizabeth warren attack ad" /></p><p>New Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is undoubtedly one of the politicians that big banks fear the most.</p>
<p>But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, it appears as though Sen. Warren has reached out to a new friend from across the aisle in the Senate: Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. The pair originally got to know each other and <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/elizabeth-warren-makes-a-republican-friend-86996_Page2.html">became friendly during the drafting of Dodd-Frank</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/elizabeth-warren-makes-a-republican-friend-86996.html">Politico reports</a> that their relationship is part of an ongoing, informal effort to improve working relations in the Senate.</p>
<p>Both are members of the Senate Banking Committee. Warren has long been known as an outspoken defender of consumers, while Corker has reportedly shown interest in &ndash; yet failed to complete &ndash; bipartisan deals on financial policy.</p>
<p>The two have already had a meeting, but Corker said they haven't started talking policy &ndash; yet.</p>
<p>A former GOP aide indicated that Sen. Corker was the right person for Sen. Warren to reach out to, saying &ldquo;The thing about Bob Corker is that he&rsquo;s kind of an unconventional member. ... He&rsquo;s willing to take stances that are kind of unconventional at times from the standpoint of party wisdom.&rdquo;</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-friends-with-bob-corker-2013-1#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-high-skill-immigration-us-companies-h-1b-visa-2013-1[CHARTS] The Thousands Of High-Skilled Workers Who Can't Work For US Companies Because The Visa System Is Brokenhttp://www.businessinsider.com/charts-high-skill-immigration-us-companies-h-1b-visa-2013-1
Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:28:25 -0500Walter Hickey
<p>A cornerstone of both <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-immigration-speech-2013-1">the President's</a> and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-immigration-reform-plan-breakdown-mccain-rubio-durbin-2013-1">Senate plans</a> for immigration reform involve increasing the number of visas available for highly skilled workers that have been recruited by American companies.&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The key bottleneck comes in when foreign citizens with a F1 visa &mdash; permission to study at an American university &mdash; graduate and try to transition to an H-1B visa, which allows those American-educated workers to work in the United States. If someone with an F1 visa can't get an H-1B, they may take their U.S. education back home with them.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>To even <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=4b7cdd1d5fd37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&amp;vgnextchannel=73566811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD">apply for the H-1B visa</a>, a person with an F1 student visa needs <span>a job offer in hand, a&nbsp;</span>degree or 12 years work experience, $325, an employer willing to sponsor an H-1B visa and pay between $750 and $1,500 as a basic fee and up to $3,725 in additional fees and no less than seven individual documents.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Because there are mandatory caps on the number of H-1B visas &mdash; <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/current-immigration-policy-silicon-valley-h-1b-2013-1">functionally 85,000,</a> with few exceptions &mdash; many of these highly trained workers are denied permission to work in the United States, despite their abilities to generate value for the economy at nearly no impact to the average American worker.&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Here are the <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/Employment-based/H1BFY09-12.pdf">statistics from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services</a> regarding the number of applications for H-1B visas, and how often they're denied, withdrawn and closed:</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><img src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5108327fecad048802000012-590-/screen%20shot%202013-01-29%20at%203.28.23%20pm.png" border="0" alt="H-1B visa denial stats" width="590" /></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">As a result of caps on H-1B visas, 41,753 full petitions for temporary worker status were denied, withdrawn, or closed over the past four fiscal years.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Here's a chart of this data:</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><img src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/51083356ecad046a02000043-587/h-1b-visa-caps.png" border="0" alt="H-1B visa caps" /></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">One major issue for these applicants &mdash; and a reason why the CIS stats may underestimate the number of students who want H-1B visas but are unable to get them &mdash; are the number of days it takes for the U.S. to &nbsp;hit the cap for H-1B visas.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p>Since demand exceeds annual supply, <a href="http://www.h1base.com/visa/work/H1BvisaCapH1BquotaSystem/ref/1568/">the U.S. runs out of H-1B visas sooner and sooner</a> each fiscal year. The H-1B visa "season" begins on April 1st and ends once the U.S. hits the 85,000 cap.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Here's how many days it took for the U.S to run out of H-1B visas each fiscal year (note that the fiscal year is different than the real year, so Fiscal year 2013 is almost over:</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><img src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/510839f1ecad04e60d000013-503/h-1b-visa-cap.png" border="0" alt="h-1b visa cap" /></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The decrease since 2011 is worrisome for firms that rely on U.S. educated foreign-born professionals. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">A year's worth of visas were all issued within two and a half months for fiscal year 2013. Companies that need a consistent inflow of these workers are aiming for a brief visa window that is getting much smaller. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">This also means that the denial rates from the CIS may be an underestimation of the people the U.S. turns away. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Once the CIS announced that they had run out of visas on June 11, they stopped accepting &mdash; and thus denying &mdash; visa petitions, meaning that nine and a half months worth of visas are potentially unaccounted for.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">As a result, American companies can't plan for employment as well as they'd like. The new plans to increase the number of high skill visas allotted annually has thus <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/senators-immigration-bill-for-silicon-valley-2013-1">received heaping praise from companies like Microsoft</a> that need to import talent.&nbsp;</span></p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-high-skill-immigration-us-companies-h-1b-visa-2013-1#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-2nd-term-end-of-bipartisanship-2013-1Obama's Second Term Will Mark The End Of Bipartisanshiphttp://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-2nd-term-end-of-bipartisanship-2013-1
Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:37:00 -0500Ryu Spaeth
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50f6e167eab8ea0553000017-400-300/obama.1.13.jpg" border="0" alt="barack obama" /></p><p>As President Obama moves with surprising forcefulness to implement elements of his second-term agenda &mdash; including gun control, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/13/obama-immigration-reform-second-term">immigration</a>, and taxes &mdash; it's worth remembering just how scattered and lost his administration appeared to be for long stretches of his first term. <em></em></p>
<p>"Inside Obama's Presidency," a new documentary from <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/pbs" class="hidden_link">PBS</a> <em>Frontline</em> (watch Chapter 1 <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/238975/president-obamas-second-term-the-end-of-bipartisanship#bottom">below</a>, or view the entire film <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/inside-obamas-presidency/">here</a>), offers a useful overview of the challenges that nearly overwhelmed the young president, who had ridden to power on a message of bipartisan healing.</p>
<p>The overarching theme of the documentary is Obama's repeated attempts to make good on his campaign promise to find common ground.</p>
<p>The film centers on three prominent episodes, starting with the most urgent: An $800 billion stimulus package to prevent the economy from collapsing in early 2009.</p>
<p>Obama stuffed the legislation with tax breaks in order to appeal to the GOP, and, to symbolize his good faith, rushed to Capitol Hill to sell the package to congressional Republicans. But GOP leaders had already developed a strategy of unified and total opposition to Obama's stimulus.</p>
<p>The stimulus package passed with zero Republican support in the House, and has long since been characterized by many conservatives as a feckless waste of money that bloated the deficit.</p>
<p>The second episode revolves around health care, which also began as a bipartisan effort. Obama was so eager to have a bipartisan imprimatur on the legislation &mdash; or even a single Republican senator on board &mdash; that he allowed it to wallow for months in committees.</p>
<p>As time dragged on, the legislative process got messier, the Tea Party movement gained momentum, and public opinion swung against the president. Conservatives won the PR war and successfully characterized ObamaCare as a massive federal overreach. The law&nbsp;passed without a single Republican vote, and Democrats lost the House in a historic sweep in the 2010 elections.</p>
<p>Obama's third attempt to make a bipartisan breakthrough came during the debt ceiling fight of 2011. He offered Speaker <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/john-boehner" class="hidden_link">John Boehner</a> (R-Ohio) significant cuts to entitlement programs in exchange for increased tax revenue, a deal now known as the Grand Bargain.</p>
<p>Boehner was unable to convince his caucus to go along, and the deal unraveled at the last minute amidst finger-pointing from both sides. Congress reached a compromise to punt the issue until after the presidential election &mdash; which is what became the fiscal cliff.</p>
<p>Conservatives, of course, will dispute <em>Frontline</em>'s version of events. Republicans have said that Obama never seriously considered GOP proposals for the stimulus, and that he blindsided Boehner by "moving the goalposts" during the Grand Bargain talks. They have also criticized Democrats for ramming health care reform through Congress using a budgetary process known as reconciliation.</p>
<p>Regardless, Obama reportedly <em>felt</em> like he had been burned. And his re-election campaign focused far more on the two parties' differences than their commonalities. He continued to call for bipartisanship, but the message had the smell of leftovers. The main thrust of his campaign was to argue that <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/mitt-romney">Mitt Romney</a>, as well as the GOP as a whole, was out of touch with the American mainstream.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It worked. While some <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15890213-press-pass-politicos-glenn-thrush-and-jonathan-martin?lite">believe</a> Obama won by deftly using negative advertising to paint Romney as a heartless tycoon, polls suggest that Obama was victorious because a majority of Americans sided with him on issues of abortion, immigration, gay marriage, the auto bailout, foreign policy, Medicare, and, most importantly, the economic direction of the country.</p>
<p>Obama's return to governance has largely been an extension of the campaign. Instead of meeting Republicans halfway before negotiations begin, he has simply put his stance against theirs, then appealed to public opinion.</p>
<p>The strategy has already borne fruit: Congress passed a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans over strong House GOP objections; polls <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/238831/republicans-in-disarray-is-the-gop-losing-the-debt-ceiling-fight">show</a> that a majority of Americans agree with Obama's position on the debt ceiling fight, causing some Republicans to abandon the party line; and a new CBS/<em><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/new-york-times" class="hidden_link">New York Times</a></em> poll <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/?tag=nl.e879&amp;s_cid=e879">shows</a> that 92 percent of Americans favor universal background checks on gun purchases, one of Obama's main proposals to strengthen gun control.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The White House has not made specific proposals for immigration reform, but Sen. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/marco-rubio" class="hidden_link">Marco Rubio</a> (R-Fla.), the GOP's point man on the issue, has won conservative <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/bill-oreilly-tells-marco-rubio-immigration-reform-sounds-pretty-fair.php">praise</a> for suggesting proposals that are nearly <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/rubio-immigration-plan-conservatives-love-looks-lot-obamas">identical</a> to Obama's campaign promises.</p>
<p>And on some issues, such as an aid package for victims of Hurricane Sandy, Obama hardly had to do any work himself: Public outrage was so intense that the bill <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/politics/no-votes-disguise-yes-sympathies-for-some-in-gop.html?hp">passed</a>, once again, over the objections of the majority of House Republicans.</p>
<p>Expect more of the same in Obama's second term. Some Obama supporters may mourn the fact that his promise of bipartisanship has fallen flat. And polls consistently show that a strong majority of Americans want both parties to work together to solve the country's problems.</p>
<p>But compromise is not always a virtue in itself, especially in cases when it flouts the popular will. In other words, in taking a more confrontational stance, Obama is not merely acknowledging that he was naive in thinking his presidency would usher in a new era of bipartisan comity &mdash; it seems he now believes that he diagnosed the problem incorrectly to begin with. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/indeed" class="hidden_link">Indeed</a>, the way Obama is acting, you would think the president is convinced that what ails government is not a lack of bipartisanship: It is the Republican Party itself.</p>
<p><object width="550" height="323.5518292682927"><param name="movie" value="http://dgjigvacl6ipj.cloudfront.net/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="width=550&amp;height=323.5518292682927&amp;video=http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2325679851&amp;player=viral&amp;chapter=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://dgjigvacl6ipj.cloudfront.net/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" flashvars="width=550&amp;height=323.5518292682927&amp;video=http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2325679851&amp;player=viral&amp;chapter=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" bgcolor="#000000" height="323.5518292682927" width="550" /></object></p>
<p style="font-size: 11px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #808080; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 512px;">Watch <a href="http://video.pbs.org/video/2325679851" target="_blank">Inside Obama's Presidency</a> on PBS. See more from <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/" target="_blank">FRONTLINE.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-2nd-term-end-of-bipartisanship-2013-1#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-bipartisanship-2012-11Gallup: Americans Still Think Obama Will Seek Bipartisan Solutionshttp://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-bipartisanship-2012-11
Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:47:46 -0500Lydia Saad
<p>Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 65%, believe President Barack Obama will make a sincere effort to work with the Republicans in Congress to find mutually acceptable solutions to the nation's problems.</p>
<p>A majority, 57%, also expect the Democrats in Congress to try to work with the opposing party's leaders, but fewer than half, 48%, say the same of the Republicans in Congress.</p>
<p align="center"><img class="imgBorder0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pdmrspr3uk2pr6xik9dfig.gif?maxX=565&amp;maxY=324" border="0" alt="Trend: Percentage Saying Each Will Make Sincere Effort to Work With Leadership of Other Party to Find Solutions Acceptable to Both Parties" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="565" height="324" align="" style="display: block;" /></p>
<p>Confidence in Obama to seek bipartisan solutions in the Nov. 9-12 <em>USA Today</em>/Gallup poll is similar to where it stood in November 2010, two years into Obama's term and after Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, but is down from a lofty 80% in 2008. Confidence in the two major parties in Congress is up slightly from 2010; however, given the Republicans' sharp drop on this measure between 2008 and 2010, they still lag behind the Democrats.</p>
<p><strong>Vast Majority of U.S. Democrats Say Their Leaders Will Work With GOP</strong></p>
<p>Democrats are nearly unanimous in believing Obama will try earnestly to work with the Republicans (98% say he will), and nearly as many (89%) are confident the Democrats in Congress will do the same.</p>
<p>By contrast, less than two-thirds of Republicans (64%) believe the Republicans in Congress will make a sincere effort to work with Obama and the Democrats in Congress.</p>
<p align="center"><img class="imgBorder0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sz6iskbotuuqjrl0vnrdsq.gif" border="0" alt="Percentages Saying Each Will Make Sincere Effort to Reach Bipartisan Solutions -- by Party ID, November 2012" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="483" height="241" align="" style="display: block;" /></p>
<p>Republicans' subdued outlook for their own party leaders' bipartisanship may be more of a wish than a criticism -- with some rank-and-file Republicans preferring that their leaders oppose Obama's legislative agenda rather than seek compromise. By the same token, the greater willingness of Democrats than Republicans to believe the opposing party will seek bipartisan solutions (38% vs. 27%) may reflect the former's hopes that the Republicans will bend in the coming year.</p>
<p>Despite Democrats' nearly unanimous belief that their own leaders will reach across the aisle, a different question in the same poll found closer to two-thirds of Democrats saying the country would benefit most if leaders of the two major parties in Washington <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/158801/americans-urge-congress-president-avoid-fiscal-cliff.aspx">compromise equally</a> in order to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. At the same time, as Gallup previously reported, 25% of Democrats say the country would most benefit by having the Republicans compromise more, similar to the percentage of Republicans saying the country would benefit from greater compromise on the part of Democrats (26%).</p>
<p>Overall, two-thirds of Americans say the best outcome for the country would be for both sides to compromise equally in the current negotiations.</p>
<p align="center"><img class="imgBorder0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/v0kyyvhxwe2enqndkfm_yg.gif" border="0" alt="Who Should Compromise More in Upcoming Budget Negotiations? November 2012" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="569" height="389" align="" style="display: block;" /></p>
<p><strong>Bottom Line</strong></p>
<p>Americans are less sure about bipartisan impulses in Washington today than they were four years ago, after Obama's victory in the 2008 election. However, overall, Americans are slightly more confident now that leaders will seek mutually acceptable solutions than they were after the November 2010 elections establishing the divided government that continues today.</p>
<p>The need to reach a budget compromise before New Year's, and thus avert automatic spending cuts and tax increases nobody wants, provides an immediate test of whether both sides will live up to Americans' expectations for bipartisanship. These expectations are highest for Obama, but are also significant for both parties in Congress.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-bipartisanship-2012-11#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-major-points-of-the-jobs-act-2012-3Obama Is About To Sign The JOBS Act: Here Are The Major Points Of The New Lawhttp://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-major-points-of-the-jobs-act-2012-3
Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:21:27 -0400Brett LoGiurato
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4f722da86bb3f7df0f000008-400-/eric-cantor-jobs-act.jpg" border="0" alt="Eric Cantor Jobs Act" width="400" /></p><p>Finally, Republicans and Democrats actually overwhelmingly agree on something &ndash;the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3606:" target="_blank">JOBS Act &ndash; the Jump start Our Business Startups</a>, which Obama is expected to sign soon.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&ldquo;The bipartisan JOBS Act represents an increasingly rare legislative victory in Washington where both sides seized the opportunity to work together, improved the bill and passed it with strong bipartisan support,&rdquo; House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said in a statement after the bill passed the House.</p>
<p>So what's in it?</p>
<p>The JOBS Act is made up of six bills neatly tied together that both parties think will help companies through a quicker, easier transition to go public and raise money.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>1. The Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act</strong> would allow small companies to increase their number of shareholders from 500 to 1,000. Under old regulations from the 1960s, small businesses were pushed into filing with the <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/sec">SEC</a> when they had 499 shareholders and $10 million in assets, which ruffled the feathers of lawmakers. Cantor said it &ldquo;severely limits the growth stage&rdquo; for small business that need time to develop.</p>
<p><strong>2. The Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act</strong> loosens SEC regulations that prevent &ldquo;crowdfunding.&rdquo; Through this measure, small businesses could gain revenue from pools of up to $2 million from a number of small investors.</p>
<p><strong>3. The Small Company Capital Formation Act</strong> is the provision that makes it easier for small businesses to go public. It increases the ceiling for companies exempt from $5 million to $50 million. In theory, this would promote more investment in the companies and create more jobs.</p>
<p><strong>4. The Access to Capital for Job Creators Act</strong> allows companies to use advertisements to solicit investors, which was previously banned under an SEC regulation. Cantor said that regulation limited the pool of potential investors, inhibiting small companies&rsquo; ability to create jobs.</p>
<p><strong>5. The Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act</strong> reduces the cost of going public. This makes it easier for companies to go public sooner, something that should directly lead to greater job creation. This provision also creates the category of &ldquo;Emerging Growth Company,&rdquo; which helps small companies stave off the bulk of SEC regulations and fees in the first few years of being public.</p>
<p><strong>6. The Capital Expansion Act</strong> increases the number of shareholders investing in a community bank from 500 to 2,000.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-major-points-of-the-jobs-act-2012-3#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-only-point-from-last-nights-speeches-where-obama-and-republicans-agree-2012-1Here's The Only Point From Last Night's Speeches Where Obama And Republicans Agreehttp://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-only-point-from-last-nights-speeches-where-obama-and-republicans-agree-2012-1
Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:02:10 -0500Linette Lopez
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4c4f29817f8b9a2620dd0300/obama-boehner-republicans.jpg" border="0" alt="Obama Boehner Republicans" /></p><p>Let's not even go over how nasty Republicans and Democrats have been to one another over the last year. The re-hash isn't worth the headache.</p>
<p>That aside, if you were listening closely enough last night, there was a glimmer of common ground in President Obama's and in Mitch Daniels' speeches &mdash; it was on tax policies on the wealthy. Both agreed that loop-holes need to be closed, and that rich Americans shouldn't get a break.</p>
<p>On the Republican side, this talk should please Tea Party populists. On the Democratic side, it should please just about everyone. Either way, this just shows that populism is super hot right now.</p>
<p>Here's the excerpt <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/politics/sotu-gop-response-transcript/index.html">from Daniels' speech:</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">It's absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: The dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. <strong>The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth</strong></p>
<p>Here's the excerpt <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B9D6DC34-0551-5FD8-12AFD0CC7FCCC2F9">from Obama's speech:</a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.</strong> Right now, <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/warren-buffett">Warren Buffett</a> pays a lower tax rate than his secretary...</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else &ndash; like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we&rsquo;re serious about paying down our debt, we can&rsquo;t do both.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-only-point-from-last-nights-speeches-where-obama-and-republicans-agree-2012-1#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/when-it-comes-to-spending-cuts-republicans-and-democrats-are-really-the-same-2011-11When It Comes To Spending Cuts, Republicans And Democrats Are Really The Samehttp://www.businessinsider.com/when-it-comes-to-spending-cuts-republicans-and-democrats-are-really-the-same-2011-11
Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:30:00 -0500Jack Hunter
<p>These days, virtually all Republicans call themselves &ldquo;conservatives&rdquo; and claim to be dedicated to cutting spending, balancing budgets, reducing debts and limiting government. Most of them are liars. The failure of the super committee this week was but the latest reminder.</p>
<p>The super committee was supposed to figure out how to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If it failed, the result was supposed to be $1.2 trillion in &ldquo;automatic cuts&rdquo; over the next decade, with about $600 billion of that coming from the defense budget. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said any such cuts would be &ldquo;devastating&rdquo; to our military. Many prominent Republicans agreed with Panetta. Romneysaid: &ldquo;We cannot put America&rsquo;s safety in jeopardy by virtue of the failure of this committee.&rdquo; <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/michele-bachmann" class="hidden_link">Michele Bachmann</a> echoed that sentiment: &ldquo;We can&rsquo;t do that to our brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.&rdquo;</p>
<p>When conservative Republicans say they want to cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy or anything else, Democratsshriek that Republicans will &ldquo;devastate&rdquo; education, energy and any other part of our government that does not remain 100% intact. Conservatives rightly recognize this as a liberal scare tactic designed to prevent anyone from downsizing a federal government that so desperately needs downsizing. What separates liberals from conservatives is that whereas liberals love big government and will tell any lie to protect it, conservatives hate big government and will cut it at every opportunitythey get &mdash; or at least this has long been perceived as the divide in American politics.</p>
<p>I stress the word &ldquo;perceived,&rdquo; because when it comes to Pentagon spending, too many Republicans still behave exactly like liberal Democrats.</p>
<p>The truth is that we don&rsquo;t need to spend as much on defense as we&rsquo;re spending now. We&rsquo;re spending more on defense than at any time since World War II and almost as much as every other nation combined. Senator <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/tom-coburn" class="hidden_link">Tom Coburn</a> has suggested that if we are going to start cutting, the Pentagon is the most logical place to start precisely because it is the most wasteful. But even more importantly, these &ldquo;devastating&rdquo; automatic cuts that are supposed to happen aren&rsquo;t really cuts. As Senator <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/rand-paul" class="hidden_link">Rand Paul</a> explained on <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/cnn" class="hidden_link">CNN</a> the day the super committee failed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>This may surprise some people, but there will be no cuts in military spending because we&rsquo;re only cutting proposed increases. If we do nothing, military spending goes up 23% over 10 years. If we [make these cuts], it will still go up 16%.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Paul is describing the classic liberal narrative that if proposed spendingincreasesare in any way diminished, this constitutes a &ldquo;cut.&rdquo; <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/rush-limbaugh" class="hidden_link">Rush Limbaugh</a> reminded his listeners of the fallacy of such thinking on his program Monday:</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>There will be no spending cuts. There are no spending cuts in sequestration or anything else. You know how the current services baseline budget works. The current services baseline budget projects an increase of let&rsquo;s say 23%, just to pick a number, okay? Well, it is, it&rsquo;s the same thing every year. When&rsquo;s the last time the budget went down in anything? It doesn&rsquo;t happen &hellip; So if something&rsquo;s supposed to go up, spending go up 23%, and it&rsquo;s only gonna go up 16%, they wail and moan about a 7% cut.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Added Limbaugh:</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Defense spending is going up even with sequestration &hellip; You understand the current services baseline budgeting, and even you are shocked to realize now that there is no real cut from a baseline of zero in defense spending.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<div style="overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<p>Last year, Sen. Rand Paul introduced a plan that would have balanced the budget in five years and reduced the debt by $4 trillion. At the time, the budget cuts it called for far exceeded those of any other Republican proposal. He was only able to arrive at such a large number by including Pentagon reductions.</p>
<p>Paul&rsquo;s proposal won the support of Senator <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/jim-demint" class="hidden_link">Jim DeMint</a> and Senator Mike Lee, but it failed in the Senate, 7-90. Why did the overwhelming majority of Republican senators oppose Paul&rsquo;s plan? Don&rsquo;t they agree with Paul, DeMint and Lee that we have to cut spending and balance the budget? What gives? Here&rsquo;s how Republican Senator Lindsey Graham explained his (and his party&rsquo;s) opposition: &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not going to vote for any budget that reduces defense spending by over 40 percent.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Paul&rsquo;s plan cut defense spending by only 6%. So where did Graham get &ldquo;40%&rdquo;? You guessed it: He defined decreases in the rate of spending increases as &ldquo;cuts.&rdquo; The same old liberal trick.</p>
<p>In Graham&rsquo;s defense, his view on defense spending seems to be the dominant one in the Republican Party today. The problem is there&rsquo;s simply no way to actually do what every Republican loves to talk about &mdash; limiting government, balancing budgets, cutting waste &mdash; without reducing defense spending. After entitlement spending, defense spending is the second largest part of our budget. You could feasibly gut the entire entitlement system and not touch Pentagon spending, but what politician is going to tell America&rsquo;s seniors they must do without so Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and God-knows-where-else can have more?</p>
<p>As of this writing, Sen. Graham is drafting legislation to &ldquo;protect our military&rdquo; from the &ldquo;devastating&rdquo; automatic &ldquo;cuts&rdquo; supposedly coming down the pike due to the super committee&rsquo;s failure.</p>
<p>If my fellow conservatives want to know why the GOP has failed to cut government spending, look at Lindsey Graham. Then take a look at all of the other Republicans who agree with him.</p>
<em>This <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/23/why-republicans-cant-cut/2/">post </a>originally appeared on <a href="http://dailycaller.com">The Daily Caller.</a></em></div><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/when-it-comes-to-spending-cuts-republicans-and-democrats-are-really-the-same-2011-11#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-propose-raising-tax-rate-on-high-wage-earners-to-over-44-2011-10DEAR RICH: Democrats Want To Hike Your Tax Rate To 44.6%http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-propose-raising-tax-rate-on-high-wage-earners-to-over-44-2011-10
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:44:28 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4d48e205ccd1d542321a0000/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner.jpg" border="0" alt="ivanka trump jared kushner" /></p><p>The Senate Democratic Leadership announced its plan today to amend President Barack Obama's jobs plan to include a 5% tax surcharge on the "the richest of the rich,"&nbsp;earning over $1 million a year.</p>
<p>The increase would be on top of the tax hike the wealthy will face if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire in January 2013 as demanded by President Barack Obama, raising the top marginal tax bracket from 35 percent now, to 44.6 percent.</p>
<p>The legislation has yet to be drafted, but Majority Leader Reid has promised a vote on the bill in the Senate "very, very soon."</p>
<p>Republican leaders have yet to accept Democratic demands to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire &mdash; and this surtax will do more harm than good to the jobs bill passing Congress. Democrats are trying to make a populist statement &mdash; so that when House Republicans block the bill they can criticize the GOP as defenders of the rich at the expense of the middle class.</p>
<p>The political ploys on both sides of the aisle are contributing to record low approval ratings for Congress this year, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-sees-a-new-low-in-americans-approval-of-congress/2011/10/04/gIQAc0yQML_story.html">with just 14% approving of their job performance</a> in a new poll.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-propose-raising-tax-rate-on-high-wage-earners-to-over-44-2011-10#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-taps-hillary-clintons-popularity-to-help-push-jobs-agenda-2011-10Obama Taps Hillary Clinton's Popularity To Help Push Jobs Agendahttp://www.businessinsider.com/obama-taps-hillary-clintons-popularity-to-help-push-jobs-agenda-2011-10
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:09:38 -0400Zeke Miller
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4dc04461ccd1d5d237140000-400-/obama-hillary.jpg" border="0" alt="obama hillary" width="400" /></p><p>President Barack Obama has drafted Secretary of State <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/hillary-r-clinton">Hillary Clinton</a> to help him sell his jobs agenda to a wary Congress and American public.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center">Clinton, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tea-party-more-disliked-than-ever-while-hillary-clinton-remains-americas-most-popular-national-figure-2011-9">the most popular figure in American government</a>, will host Obama's&nbsp;Council on Jobs and Competitiveness on Friday at the State Department to discuss ways to grow foreign direct investment and increase domestic investment.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center">It's a major shift for Clinton, who has largely been above the fray between Congress and Obama, with a heavy foreign policy agenda due to the Arab Spring &mdash; and inserting her into the debate seems to be an attempt by the Obama administration to capitalize on her popularity.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center">She will be joined by&nbsp;<a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/ge">GE</a> Chairman and President&rsquo;s Jobs Council Chairman <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/jeff-immelt">Jeff Immelt</a>,&nbsp;<a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/kodak">Kodak</a> CEO <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/antonio-perez">Antonio Perez</a>, and <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/ubs">UBS</a> President&nbsp;<a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/robert-wolf">Robert Wolf</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;" align="center"><em>The White House press release for the event is below:</em></p>
<hr />
<p align="center"><span>THE WHITE HOUSE<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<div>
<p align="center"><span>Office of the Press Secretary<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
</div>
<p><span>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>October 5, 2011</span></p>
<p align="center"><strong><span>FRIDAY: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Host the President&rsquo;s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness for a Listening and Action Session on Increasing Inbound Direct Investment in the United States to Help Create Jobs and Grow the Economy<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span>S</span><em style="text-align: -webkit-center;">ecretary Clinton, Acting Secretary Blank to join Jobs Council Members, business leaders to discuss critical importance of US open investment policy and ways to increase inbound direct investment in the United States</em>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span>WASHINGTON, DC &ndash; On Friday, October 7<sup>th</sup>, the President&rsquo;s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will hold a Listening and Action Session with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Acting Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt, CEO of Kodak Antonio Perez, UBS Investment Bank President Robert Wolf as well as business leaders and stakeholders to discuss the critical importance of further strengthening inbound foreign direct investment in the United States.&nbsp; Investments by foreign-based companies as well as increasing domestic investment create well-paid jobs, contribute to economic growth, boost productivity, and support American communities.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span>In June, President Obama signed an executive order creating SelectUSA &ndash; the first-ever&nbsp;</span><span>government-wide initiative to attract and retain U.S. business investment</span><span>.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><span>The President&rsquo;s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, as part of a series of recommendations to the President to promote private sector job creation, has recommended a heightened focus on continuing to grow foreign direct investment and increase domestic investment as a way to support job creation and encourage economic growth.&nbsp; On Friday, senior Administration officials and Members of the Jobs Council will hear firsthand from business leaders and discuss critical steps we can take to increase investment in the United States.&nbsp;</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span>FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7th<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>President&rsquo;s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness Listening and Action Session on Increasing Inbound Direct Investment in the United States to Help Create Jobs and Grow the Economy</span></p>
<p><strong><span>Discussion Participants:<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></strong></p>
<p><span>U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Acting U.S. Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>Chairman of GE and President&rsquo;s Jobs Council Chairman Jeff Immelt<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>CEO of Kodak and President&rsquo;s Jobs Council Member Antonio Perez<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>President, UBS Investment Bank and President&rsquo;s Jobs Council Member Robert Wolf</span></p>
<p><span>These senior Administration officials and Members of the President&rsquo;s Jobs Council will be joined for the discussion by a diverse group of CEOs, business leaders and stakeholders.</span></p>
<p><strong><span>Time:&nbsp;</span></strong><span>10:00AM-11:30AM</span><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p>
<p><strong><span>Location:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></strong><span>Benjamin Franklin Room<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Department of State<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></span></p>
<p><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Washington, DC</span></p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-taps-hillary-clintons-popularity-to-help-push-jobs-agenda-2011-10#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-democrats-want-to-pay-for-obamas-jobs-bill-with-400-billion-millionaires-tax-2011-10Senate Democrats Want To Pay For Obama's Jobs Bill With A $400 Billion Millionaires Taxhttp://www.businessinsider.com/senate-democrats-want-to-pay-for-obamas-jobs-bill-with-400-billion-millionaires-tax-2011-10
Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:20:00 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e80e402eab8eac761000018/harry-reid.jpg" border="0" alt="Harry Reid" /></p><p>Facing opposition in his caucus to the current package of new revenues in President Barack Obama's jobs bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering replacing them with a five percent surtax on those with incomes over $1 million.</p>
<p>The move is largely a political stunt,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-calls-democrats-bluff-on-obamas-jobs-bill-2011-10">after Reid himself was gamed</a>&nbsp;by Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell on Tuesday. Members of the public overwhelmingly support Democrats' efforts to tax the rich, while their spending proposals are less loved.&nbsp;Such a plan would be certain to fail, as House Republicans have pledged to kill any bill with new taxes.</p>
<p>The details on the tax, <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B78063B6-70AD-41B1-ADA0-513500065D91">first reported by POLITICO</a>, and confirmed by two Democratic sources on Capitol Hill, are still vague &mdash; but is being seen as a partial replacement for Obama's deficit plan, which is has even dimmer prospects than the jobs bill.</p>
<p>The deficit bill included phasing out the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and included the so-called "Buffett Tax," which would set a minimum effective tax rate for those with incomes over $1 million.</p>
<p>&ldquo;There is a wide range of things we&rsquo;re looking at, because the only objections I heard from my caucus is dealing with the pay-fors,&rdquo; Reid said on Tuesday, adding that Obama is okay with changing the revenue-raising side of the bill. &ldquo;So, we&rsquo;re resolving that issue as we speak.&rdquo;</p>
<p>The current version of the jobs bill included eliminating most tax deductions on those earning over $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 per year.</p>
<p>Obama has not waded into the legislative fight on his jobs plan, preferring to travel to congressional districts of high-profile GOP lawmakers to urge their constituents to back the plan.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/senate-democrats-want-to-pay-for-obamas-jobs-bill-with-400-billion-millionaires-tax-2011-10#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-calls-democrats-bluff-on-obamas-jobs-bill-2011-10White House Accuses GOP Of Pulling A 'Political Stunt' With Jobs Billhttp://www.businessinsider.com/gop-calls-democrats-bluff-on-obamas-jobs-bill-2011-10
Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:46:00 -0400Zeke Miller and Grace Wyler
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c993749e2ae0172000000-400-/mcconnell.jpg" border="0" alt="McConnell" width="400" /></p><p>Senate Minority Leader called Democrats' bluff on President Barack Obama's jobs bill today, introducing the bill in full on the Senate floor &mdash; only for it to be blocked by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.</p>
<p>President Barack Obama has called on Congress to vote on the bill without delay, launching on a nationwide tour to highlight his proposals. But Democrats have had difficulty wrangling a majority for the bill, which has been declared "dead" in the House of Representatives by Majority Leader Eric Cantor.</p>
<p>McConnell, knowing the difficulty Reid is having keeping Democrats on board, sought to gain the political upper-hand, by giving Obama what he wanted &mdash; knowing a vote today was certain to fail. But he attached it as an amendment to the Chinese currency manipulation bill that the Obama administration opposes. </p>
<p>Reid said he would bring up the jobs bill later this month &mdash; promising a vote in October. "Right away is a relative term," he said. He added that the only way Obama's jobs bill wont pass is if Republicans won't support it; saying the only question for some Democrats are the payfors.</p>
<p>Reid will change some of the new taxes in Obama's bill to make them more palatable to Democrats before bringing it up for a vote when he is sure it can pass.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE, 7:39 p.m.:</strong></p>
<p>The White House fired back at McConnell this afternoon, calling his plan to attach Obama's jobs bill to the Chinese currency bill a "political stunt."</p>
<p>"All that tells us is it was a very disingenuous attempt to draw attention away from the fact that this president is calling on members of Congress, both houses to act on jobs and the economy," Carney said. "I would simply point out that this is coming from a senator who has on the record stated that his number one priority as the Republican leader of the Senate is not the economy, not jobs, but to defeat President Obama."</p>
<p>But when asked whether Reid has indicated that he will call a vote on the jobs bill after the China bill, Carney hesitated and deferred "scheduling" questions to Reid's office. </p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-calls-democrats-bluff-on-obamas-jobs-bill-2011-10#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-demands-congress-vote-on-his-jobs-bill-by-the-end-of-the-month-2011-10Obama Demands Congress Vote On His Jobs Bill By The End Of The Monthhttp://www.businessinsider.com/obama-demands-congress-vote-on-his-jobs-bill-by-the-end-of-the-month-2011-10
Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:46:37 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e397751ecad04aa03000007/obama-campaign-bus.jpg" border="0" alt="Obama campaign bus" /></p><p>President Barack Obama said he is calling on Congress to hold votes on his jobs bill by the end of the month, after weeks of legislative stalling on the controversial bill.</p>
<p>Speaking at the start of a Cabinet meeting, Obama said he would be in touch with congressional leaders to "insist&nbsp;that we have a vote on this bill."</p>
<p>Republicans have branded the bill as a "second stimulus" and have pledged to oppose it, while Senate Democrats are slow-walking the bill because even they see dissent in their ranks.</p>
<p>Obama said if Republicans have parts of the bill they dislike, that they should bring their concerns forward so the rest of the bill can pass &mdash; something the GOP leadership did in a lengthy memo last month.</p>
<p>The bill includes an extension of the payroll tax cut, which unless renewed, would result in Americans paying on average an addition $1000 in taxes next year, the White House said.</p>
<p>Obama is resuming his nationwide advocacy tour on the bill tomorrow, with a speech at a Texas community college.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-demands-congress-vote-on-his-jobs-bill-by-the-end-of-the-month-2011-10#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-makes-it-personal-call-out-boehner-on-his-home-turf-2011-9OBAMA: 'I Am A Warrior For The Middle Class'http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-makes-it-personal-call-out-boehner-on-his-home-turf-2011-9
Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:26:00 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e7b8c0deab8ea9a2c000044-400-/obama-bridge.jpg" border="0" alt="Obama Bridge" width="400" /></p><p>In a fiery political &mdash; and personal &mdash; speech in Cincinnati to push his jobs plan, President Barack Obama called out Speaker of the House <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/john-boehner" class="hidden_link">John Boehner</a> on his home turf.</p>
<p>Speaking in front of a "functionally obsolete" bridge miles from Boehner's home district that connects to the home state of the Senate's top Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Obama was combative, criticizing Congress for failing to act on his jobs plan.</p>
<p>A plan to rebuild the Brent Spence Bridge would not benefit from Obama's plan &mdash; with construction not slated to start until 2015 &mdash; but Press Secretary Jay Carney called it "symbolic and representative of crumbling infrastructure across the country."</p>
<p align="left">After highlighting the benefits of his plan, Obama said: "So my question to Congress is, what on Earth are you waiting for?"</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left">"Now, the bridge behind us just so happens to connect the state that&rsquo;s home to the Speaker of the House with the state that&rsquo;s home to the Minority Leader of the Senate. Sheer coincidence, of course. But part of the reason I came here is because Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell are the two most powerful Republicans in government. They can either kill this jobs bill, or they can help us pass it."</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left">"I know these men care about their states.&nbsp; And I can&rsquo;t imagine that the Speaker wants to represent a state where nearly one in four bridges is classified as substandard.&nbsp; I know that when Senator McConnell visited the closed bridge in Kentucky, he said that &ldquo;roads and bridges are not partisan in Washington.&rdquo;&nbsp; I know that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/paul-ryan" class="hidden_link">Paul Ryan</a>, the Republican in charge of the budget process, recently said you can&rsquo;t deny that &ldquo;infrastructure does create jobs.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>"Well if that&rsquo;s the case, then there&rsquo;s no reason for Republicans in Congress to stand in the way of more construction projects.&nbsp; There&rsquo;s no reason to stand in the way of more jobs.&nbsp; Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, help us rebuild this bridge.&nbsp; Help us rebuild America.&nbsp; Help us put this country back to work.&nbsp; Pass this jobs bill right away."</p>
<p align="left">Obama also criticized Republicans for attacking his jobs and tax plan as "class warfare," but said if protecting the middle class made him guilty of that, "I'll wear that charge as a badge of honor."</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left">This isn&rsquo;t to punish success.&nbsp; What&rsquo;s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it &ndash; the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea that could make us millionaires.&nbsp; All I&rsquo;m saying is that those who have done the best in this country should contribute to its success.&nbsp; All I&rsquo;m saying is that Warren Buffett&rsquo;s secretary shouldn&rsquo;t be paying a higher tax rate than <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/warren-buffett" class="hidden_link">Warren Buffett</a>.&nbsp; In the United States of America, a construction worker making $50,000 shouldn&rsquo;t pay higher taxes than somebody pulling in $50 million.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s not fair.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s not right.&nbsp; And it has to change.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;" align="left">This is about priorities.&nbsp; This is about choices.&nbsp; If we want to pay for this jobs plan, and close this deficit, and invest in our future, the money has to come from somewhere.&nbsp; Would you rather keep tax loopholes for oil companies?&nbsp; Or do you want construction workers to have a job rebuilding our bridges?&nbsp; Would you rather keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires?&nbsp; Or do you want to put teachers back to work, and help small businesses, and cut taxes for middle-class families?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span style="color: #222222;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;">"Now the Republicans, you know when I, I talked about this earlier in the week. They said 'well, this is class warfare.' You know what? If asking a billionaire to pay their fair of taxes. To pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what? I, I, I, I, I'm, I'm a warrior for the middle class. I'm happy to fight for the middle class."&nbsp;<br /></span></span></p>
<p align="left">For the record, Obama used some form of the phrase "Pass this jobs bill" twelve times during his speech.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-makes-it-personal-call-out-boehner-on-his-home-turf-2011-9#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-deficit-speech-as-a-word-cloud-2011-9Obama's Deficit Speech As A Word Cloudhttp://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-deficit-speech-as-a-word-cloud-2011-9
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 13:11:00 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4e77741c69bedd504700007b-600-/obama-deficit-speech-word-cloud.png" border="0" alt="Obama Deficit Speech Word Cloud" width="600" /></p><p></p>
<p><em>For those of you who want to read it the old fashioned way, here's the full speech:</em></p>
<p>Good morning, everybody.&nbsp; Please have a seat.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>A week ago today, I sent Congress the American Jobs Act.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s a plan that will lead to new jobs for teachers, for construction workers, for veterans, and for the unemployed. &nbsp;It will cut taxes for every small business owner and virtually every working man and woman in America.&nbsp; And the proposals in this jobs bill are the kinds that have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past.&nbsp; So there shouldn&rsquo;t be any reason for Congress to drag its feet.&nbsp; They should pass it right away.&nbsp; I'm ready to sign a bill.&nbsp; I've got the pens all ready.</p>
<p>Now, as I said before, Congress should pass this bill knowing that every proposal is fully paid for.&nbsp; The American Jobs Act will not add to our nation&rsquo;s debt.&nbsp; And today, I&rsquo;m releasing a plan that details how to pay for the jobs bill while also paying down our debt over time.&nbsp;</p>
<p>And this is important, because the health of our economy depends in part on what we do right now to create the conditions where businesses can hire and middle-class families can feel a basic measure of economic security.&nbsp; But in the long run, our prosperity also depends on our ability to pay down the massive debt we&rsquo;ve accumulated over the past decade in a way that allows us to meet our responsibilities to each other and to the future.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>During this past decade, profligate spending in Washington, tax cuts for multi-millionaires and billionaires, the cost of two wars, and the recession turned a record surplus into a yawning deficit, and that left us with a big pile of IOUs.&nbsp; If we don&rsquo;t act, that burden will ultimately fall on our children&rsquo;s shoulders.&nbsp; If we don&rsquo;t act, the growing debt will eventually crowd out everything else, preventing us from investing in things like education, or sustaining programs like Medicare.&nbsp;</p>
<p>So Washington has to live within its means.&nbsp; The government has to do what families across this country have been doing for years.&nbsp; We have to cut what we can&rsquo;t afford to pay for what really matters.&nbsp; We need to invest in what will promote hiring and economic growth now while still providing the confidence that will come with a plan that reduces our deficits over the long-term.</p>
<p>These principles were at the heart of the deficit framework that I put forward in April.&nbsp; It was an approach to shrink the deficit as a share of the economy, but not to do so so abruptly with spending cuts that would hamper growth or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p>It was an approach that said we need to go through the budget line-by-line looking for waste, without shortchanging education and basic scientific research and road construction, because those things are essential to our future.&nbsp; And it was an approach that said we shouldn't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class; that for us to solve this problem, everybody, including the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, have to pay their fair share.&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, during the debt ceiling debate, I had hoped to negotiate a compromise with the Speaker of the House that fulfilled these principles and achieved the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that leaders in both parties have agreed we need -- a grand bargain that would have strengthened our economy, instead of weakened it.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the Speaker walked away from a balanced package.&nbsp; What we agreed to instead wasn&rsquo;t all that grand.&nbsp; But it was a start -- roughly $1 trillion in cuts to domestic spending and defense spending.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Everyone knows we have to do more, and a special joint committee of Congress is assigned to find more deficit reduction. So, today, I&rsquo;m laying out a set of specific proposals to finish what we started this summer -- proposals that live up to the principles I&rsquo;ve talked about from the beginning.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s a plan that reduces our debt by more than $4 trillion, and achieves these savings in a way that is fair -- by asking everybody to do their part so that no one has to bear too much of the burden on their own.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>All told, this plan cuts $2 in spending for every dollar in new revenues.&nbsp; In addition to the $1 trillion in spending that we&rsquo;ve already cut from the budget, our plan makes additional spending cuts that need to happen if we&rsquo;re to solve this problem. We reform agricultural subsidies -- subsidies that a lot of times pay large farms for crops that they don't grow.&nbsp; We make modest adjustments to federal retirement programs.&nbsp; We reduce by tens of billions of dollars the tax money that goes to <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/fannie-mae">Fannie Mae</a> and <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/freddie-mac">Freddie Mac</a>.&nbsp; We also ask the largest financial firms -- companies saved by tax dollars during the financial crisis -- to repay the American people for every dime that we spent.&nbsp; And we save an additional $1 trillion as we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p>These savings are not only counted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan that nearly every Republican on the House voted for.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Finally, this plan includes structural reforms to reduce the cost of health care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid.&nbsp; Keep in mind we've already included a number of reforms in the health care law, which will go a long way towards controlling these costs.&nbsp; But we're going to have to do a little more.&nbsp; This plan reduces wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments while changing some incentives that often lead to excessive health care costs.&nbsp; It makes prescriptions more affordable through faster approval of generic drugs.&nbsp; We&rsquo;ll work with governors to make Medicaid more efficient and more accountable.&nbsp; And we&rsquo;ll change the way we pay for health care.&nbsp; Instead of just paying for procedures, providers will be paid more when they improve results -- and such steps will save money and improve care.&nbsp;</p>
<p>These changes are phased in slowly to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over time.&nbsp; Because while we do need to reduce health care costs, I&rsquo;m not going to allow that to be an excuse for turning Medicare into a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry.&nbsp; And I'm not going to stand for balancing the budget by denying or reducing health care for poor children or those with disabilities.&nbsp; So we will reform Medicare and Medicaid, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment that this country has kept for generations.&nbsp;</p>
<p>And by the way, that includes our commitment to Social Security.&nbsp; I've said before, Social Security is not the primary cause of our deficits, but it does face long-term challenges as our country grows older.&nbsp; And both parties are going to need to work together on a separate track to strengthen Social Security for our children and our grandchildren.</p>
<p>So this is how we can reduce spending:&nbsp; by scouring the budget for every dime of waste and inefficiency, by reforming government spending, and by making modest adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid.&nbsp; But all these reductions in spending, by themselves, will not solve our fiscal problems.&nbsp; We can&rsquo;t just cut our way out of this hole.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s going to take a balanced approach.&nbsp; If we&rsquo;re going to make spending cuts -- many of which we wouldn&rsquo;t make if we weren&rsquo;t facing such large budget deficits -- then it&rsquo;s only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share.</p>
<p>You know, last week, Speaker of the House <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/john-boehner">John Boehner</a> gave a speech about the economy.&nbsp; And to his credit, he made the point that we can&rsquo;t afford the kind of politics that says it&rsquo;s &ldquo;my way or the highway.&rdquo;&nbsp; I was encouraged by that.&nbsp; Here&rsquo;s the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever.&nbsp; He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is &ldquo;only one option.&rdquo;&nbsp; And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts.&nbsp; That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America&rsquo;s technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse.&nbsp; It would cripple our competitiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future.&nbsp; And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.</p>
<p>So the Speaker says we can&rsquo;t have it "my way or the highway," and then basically says, my way -- or the highway.&nbsp; (Laughter.)&nbsp; That&rsquo;s not smart.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s not right.&nbsp; If we&rsquo;re going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, I&rsquo;m proposing real, serious cuts in spending.&nbsp; When you include the $1 trillion in cuts I&rsquo;ve already signed into law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our history. But they&rsquo;ve got to be part of a larger plan that&rsquo;s balanced &ndash;- a plan that asks the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share, just like everybody else.&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And that&rsquo;s why this plan eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations &ndash;- tax breaks that small businesses and middle-class families don&rsquo;t get.&nbsp; And if tax reform doesn't get done, this plan asks the wealthiest Americans to go back to paying the same rates that they paid during the 1990s, before the Bush tax cuts.</p>
<p>I promise it&rsquo;s not because anybody looks forward to the prospects of raising taxes or paying more taxes.&nbsp; I don&rsquo;t.&nbsp; In fact, I&rsquo;ve cut taxes for the middle class and for small businesses, and through the American Jobs Act, we&rsquo;d cut taxes again to promote hiring and put more money into the pockets of people.&nbsp; But we can&rsquo;t afford these special lower rates for the wealthy -&ndash; rates, by the way, that were meant to be temporary.&nbsp; Back when these first -- these tax cuts, back in 2001, 2003, were being talked about, they were talked about temporary measures.&nbsp; We can&rsquo;t afford them when we&rsquo;re running these big deficits.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>Now, I am also ready to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform our entire tax code, to get rid of the decades of accumulated loopholes, special interest carve-outs, and other tax expenditures that stack the deck against small business owners and ordinary families who can&rsquo;t afford Washington lobbyists or fancy accountants.&nbsp; Our tax code is more than 10,000 pages long. If you stack up all the volumes, they&rsquo;re almost five feet tall.&nbsp; That means that how much you pay often depends less on what you make and more on how well you can game the system, and that's especially true of the corporate tax code.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We&rsquo;ve got one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, but it&rsquo;s riddled with exceptions and special interest loopholes.&nbsp; So some companies get out paying a lot of taxes, while the rest of them end up having to foot the bill.&nbsp; And this makes our entire economy less competitive and our country a less desirable place to do business.&nbsp;<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span></p>
<p>That has to change.&nbsp; Our tax code shouldn&rsquo;t give an advantage to companies with the best-connected lobbyists.&nbsp; It should give an advantage to companies that invest in the United States of America and create jobs in the United States of America.&nbsp; And we can lower the corporate rate if we get rid of all these special deals.</p>
<p>So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive.&nbsp; But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit.&nbsp; That has to be part of the formula.&nbsp; And any reform should follow another simple principle:&nbsp; Middle-class families shouldn&rsquo;t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s pretty straightforward.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s hard to argue against that.&nbsp; Warren Buffett&rsquo;s secretary shouldn&rsquo;t pay a higher tax rate than <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/warren-buffett">Warren Buffett</a>.&nbsp; There is no justification for it.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.&nbsp; Anybody who says we can&rsquo;t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.&nbsp; They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making&nbsp; $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate.&nbsp; They ought to have to answer for it.&nbsp; And if they&rsquo;re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now, we&rsquo;re already hearing the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just &ldquo;class warfare.&rdquo;&nbsp; I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare.&nbsp; I think it&rsquo;s just the right the thing to do.&nbsp; I believe the American middle class, who've been pressured relentlessly for decades, believe it&rsquo;s time that they were fought for as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations.</p>
<p>Nobody wants to punish success in America.&nbsp; What&rsquo;s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -&ndash; the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires.&nbsp; This is the land of opportunity.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s great.&nbsp; All I&rsquo;m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible.&nbsp; We shouldn&rsquo;t get a better deal than ordinary families get.&nbsp; And I think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future.</p>
<p>It comes down to this:&nbsp; We have to prioritize.&nbsp; Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount -- by $4 trillion.&nbsp; So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal?&nbsp; Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we&rsquo;re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare.&nbsp; We can&rsquo;t afford to do both.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Either we gut education and medical research, or we&rsquo;ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don&rsquo;t get.&nbsp; We can&rsquo;t afford to do both.&nbsp;</p>
<p>This is not class warfare.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s math.&nbsp; (Laughter.)&nbsp; The money is going to have to come from someplace.&nbsp; And if we&rsquo;re not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more:&nbsp; We&rsquo;ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor.&nbsp; We&rsquo;ve got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow.&nbsp; We&rsquo;ve got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.&nbsp;</p>
<p>That&rsquo;s unacceptable to me.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s unacceptable to the American people.&nbsp; And it will not happen on my watch.&nbsp; I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans.&nbsp; And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share.&nbsp; We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.&nbsp;</p>
<p>None of the changes I&rsquo;m proposing are easy or politically convenient.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s always more popular to promise the moon and leave the bill for after the next election or the election after that.&nbsp; That&rsquo;s been true since our founding.&nbsp; George Washington grappled with this problem.&nbsp; He said, &ldquo;Towards the payment of debts, there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; [and] no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.&rdquo;&nbsp; He understood that dealing with the debt is -- these are his words -- &ldquo;always a choice of difficulties.&rdquo;&nbsp; But he also knew that public servants weren&rsquo;t elected to do what was easy; they weren&rsquo;t elected to do what was politically advantageous.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s our responsibility to put country before party.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s our responsibility to do what&rsquo;s right for the future.</p>
<p>And that&rsquo;s what this debate is about.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s not about numbers on a ledger; it&rsquo;s not about figures on a spreadsheet.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s about the economic future of this country, and it&rsquo;s about whether we will do what it takes to create jobs and growth and opportunity while facing up to the legacy of debt that threatens everything we&rsquo;ve built over generations.</p>
<p>And it&rsquo;s also about fairness.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s about whether we are, in fact, in this together, and we&rsquo;re looking out for one another.&nbsp; We know what&rsquo;s right.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s time to do what&rsquo;s right.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thank you very much.</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-deficit-speech-as-a-word-cloud-2011-9#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/live-coverage-2011-9Obama Unveils Tax Increases, Geithner Faces Grillinghttp://www.businessinsider.com/live-coverage-2011-9
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:37:00 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4e651b1c6bb3f7915500002f/obama-michigan.jpg" border="0" alt="Obama Michigan" /></p><p>President Barack Obama unveiled his deficit reduction proposal this morning, including $1.5 trillion in tax increases.</p>
<p>Calling once again for an end to partisanship, Obama gave a decidedly political speech &mdash; slamming Speaker of the House John Boehner's opposition to tax increases.</p>
<p>The administration claims Obama's plan will cut $4.4 trillion from the federal deficit over the next decade, when savings from the August debt ceiling deal and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are included.</p>
<p>Republicans are already criticizing the tax increases, which come from eliminating the Bush tax cuts, and cutting deductions for wealthy individuals and corporations, as <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/shocker-gop-rejects-obamas-tax-hikes-on-the-rich-2011-9">"class warfare."</a> Obama also announced the populist "Buffett Rule," which would guarantee that wealthy Americans pay at least the same tax rate as those with middle incomes.</p>
<h3><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/fact-sheet-obamas-tax-and-deficit-plan-2011-9">Read More:&nbsp;Fact Sheet: Obama's Tax And Deficit Plan</a></h3>
<p>Obama also issued a sternly worded veto threat against any bill that "takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share."</p>
<p>Treasury Secretary <a class="hidden_link" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/tim-geithner">Tim Geithner</a>, defended the Obama plan from the White House Press Room, calling it the best policy alternative. Geithner also denied allegations that he slowed Obama's request for a plan to dissolve Citigroup during the financial crisis.</p>
<p>Read our coverage of this morning's events below:</p><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/live-coverage-2011-9#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p> http://www.businessinsider.com/by-the-numbers-obamas-deficittax-plan-2011-9By The Numbers: Obama's Tax Increaseshttp://www.businessinsider.com/by-the-numbers-obamas-deficittax-plan-2011-9
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:30:00 -0400Zeke Miller
<p><img style="float:right;" src="http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4e5fc479ecad04cb4c000019/white-house-money.jpg" border="0" alt="White House Money" /></p><p>President Barack Obama will announce his deficit plan this Morning, which will include $1.5 trillion in new taxes for the wealthy and corporations.</p>
<p>Democrats are saying the plan cuts over $4 trillion &mdash; when the savings from the August debt deal and the wind-down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are factored in. Of that, taxes would make up under 37 percent of the total package.</p>
<p>The Republican counter-argument is that the debt deal is in the past, the war savings were never going to be spent, and the tax increases are unacceptable. By their accounting, Obama cuts just $580 billion in spending, while 75% of the plan comes from raising taxes on small business owners and other "job creators."</p>
<p>Setting the stage for months of political arguments, Republicans are set to reject any plan that includes tax increases, while Obama is threatening a veto on any plan that asks Medicare beneficiaries to pay more without asking the wealthy to kick in their fair share.</p>
<h3>The deficit plan by the numbers:</h3>
<ul>
<li>$1.5 trillion from tax reform/increases (including the "Buffett Rule" minimum tax rate for incomes over $1 million)</li>
<ul>
<li>$<span class="Apple-tab-span">800B from eliminating Bush tax cuts for wealth</span>y</li>
<li>$<span class="Apple-tab-span">400B from </span>ending deductions for the wealthy (including some charitable deductions)</li>
<li>$<span class="Apple-tab-span">300B</span>&nbsp;from ending some corporate deductions</li>
</ul>
<li>$580 billion in non-defense mandatory spending</li>
<ul>
<li>$248 billion from Medicare</li>
<li>$72 billion from Medicaid</li>
</ul>
<li>$1.1 trillion from the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan</li>
<li>$1.2 trillion saved from spending caps agreed to in the August debt ceiling deal</li>
</ul><p><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/by-the-numbers-obamas-deficittax-plan-2011-9#comments">Join the conversation about this story &#187;</a></p>